Outcry over Stadium home runs is way off base

Jun. 4, 2009

Written by

There has been so much talk and so much hand-wringing from fans over the number of home runs hit at the new Yankee Stadium that it sometimes feels like one more broken-bat homer might spark a particularly passionate group to stage a full-blown intervention in Lonn Trost's office. With a grand total of 25 home games completed during its entire existence, the level of concern and, frankly, anger, over the way the new Stadium has played so far is truly mind-boggling.

It's also silly.

First of all, it's presumptuous to label a park a "hitters' haven" or any other term after such a limited sample. While a park can't necessarily "get better" the way a struggling (but talented) rookie might, there are any number of factors - starting with weather, wind patterns and surrounding buildings - that may or may not affect the way a ballpark plays as its history grows. At the very least, the new Stadium deserves a full season before it's excoriated as a joke.

Beyond that, though, is this: Even if the park does turn out to be more homer-prone than its predecessor, even if it does yield more home runs than expected, there is nothing particularly wrong with that. It's not better or worse than the old Stadium. It's just different. It's just the way it is. Consider: Home runs are a part of baseball. Baseball games are played at Yankee Stadium. So home runs are hit at Yankee Stadium. Where is the crime in that?

So far as I can tell, the criticism of the new Stadium's track record stems from one of two basic arguments:

1. The emotional argument: Often espoused by traditionalists, this line of reasoning is based on the notion that all these home runs are just wrong. This is an affront to baseball, Yankees history, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio and Babe Ruth. It's not right because ... well, it just isn't.

2. The somewhat-abstract statistical argument: A more reasonable (or, at minimum, more rational) method of thinking, this theory charges that all the home runs at the Stadium put the Yankees at a competitive disadvantage. More homers means more pitching changes and, ostensibly, more work for relievers. Since the Yankees play half their games at the new Stadium, it would follow that their pitchers will be more fatigued after any given series is over than the team they are about to face in the next series.

Taking the second point first, it's absolutely possible that the Yankees' relievers may, in fact, see their innings-pitched totals increase. It's also just as possible that the confidence levels of their hitters will see a similar increase, as their previous fly balls turn into home runs. Can you quantify what that means to a hitter when he goes and plays elsewhere? The extra snap in his bat or whip in his swing that a higher self-esteem produces? Maybe not. But it will surely exist.

So, too, will the "home-field advantage" increase for the Yankees. While their pitchers may well have to get more outs at the new Stadium if it turns out to be a power alley, those same pitchers will learn to adapt - to pitch to certain parts of the plate, to read the winds, to adapt to unique conditions. They'll be used to it, just like players on the Colorado Rockies (or Denver Broncos) are better able to deal with the effects of high altitude at their homes. Familiarity breeds success.

It's impossible to know whether either (or both) of those benefits would even out the supposed increase in workload for the relievers, but it's also worth noting that a stadium that plays small hardly precludes a team from winning. The Phillies, who play in homer-happy Citizens Bank Park, won the World Series last year (with, by the way, their effective bullpen playing a critical role) while the Rockies made it to the Fall Classic in 2007. The White Sox, who play in a notorious hitters' park, were champs in 2005, and the team they beat, the Astros, also calls a homer-friendly stadium home.

That's where the fallacy of the first argument comes in; those fans who think all the home runs defies the aura of Yankee Stadium are misunderstanding what that aura really is. It's the winning, the players, the pinstripes that make the Stadium special, not how many balls go over the wall.

The Yankees made an effort to incorporate as many elements of the old Stadium into the new design as possible, and it was a noble - and appropriate - thing to do. But those who say a new stadium should play like the old one are having a very selective memory: If that's true, why did no one scream and shout about the lack of a 450-foot center-field wall at the old place? Why did no one shriek about Monument Park being behind the fence? Where was the outrage then?

The winning is what matters. Those who believe the Yankees have somehow screwed up their new stadium are rashly calling for changes: Push the fences back, raise the height of the walls, take out seats. Of course, there's no guarantee any of those things would really make a difference. The Phillies moved back their fences after the 2005 season and home runs went up in 2006.

In other words, the obvious solution isn't necessarily much of one, which makes sense when you think about it, since the truth is that there really isn't much of a problem.

There have been a lot of home runs at the new Yankee Stadium, some given up by Yankees pitchers, some hit out by Yankees hitters. The Yankees themselves are dealing with it. Everyone else should quiet down and do the same.